FRANCOIS v. JOHNSON, CV 13-01964-PHX-PGR. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20140521910
Visitors: 7
Filed: May 20, 2014
Latest Update: May 20, 2014
Summary: ORDER PAUL G. ROSENBLATT, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 33) of the Court's order denying Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's motion is not based on a showing of manifest error or new facts or legal authority. LRCiv. 7.2(g). Instead, it repeats facts and arguments the Court has already considered, twice. See United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112 , 1116 (D.Ari
Summary: ORDER PAUL G. ROSENBLATT, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 33) of the Court's order denying Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's motion is not based on a showing of manifest error or new facts or legal authority. LRCiv. 7.2(g). Instead, it repeats facts and arguments the Court has already considered, twice. See United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112 , 1116 (D.Ariz..
More
ORDER
PAUL G. ROSENBLATT, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 33) of the Court's order denying Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's motion is not based on a showing of manifest error or new facts or legal authority. LRCiv. 7.2(g). Instead, it repeats facts and arguments the Court has already considered, twice. See United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D.Ariz. 1998) (motions for reconsideration should not ask the court to "rethink what the court has already thought through—rightly or wrongly.").
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 33).
Source: Leagle
